Ozy Media Inc.

2. Federal Investor-Fraud Convictions Returned

Federal prosecutors alleged that Ozy Media, Carlos Watson and other executives deceived investors and lenders through inflated financial and audience figures, sham or forged contracts, false business relationships and impersonation of media executives. Samir Rao and Suzee Han pleaded guilty and cooperated, while juries convicted Ozy and Watson; Watson received a 116-month prison sentence, Ozy received probation, and the court later ordered restitution and forfeiture.

On 23 February 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York announced that Ozy Media Inc. and its founder and former CEO, Carlos Watson, had been indicted in Brooklyn federal court for conspiracy to commit securities fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud; Watson was also charged with aggravated identity theft. The indictment alleged that, from approximately 2018 to 2021, Watson and co-conspirators including then-COO Samir Rao and then-Chief of Staff Suzee Han defrauded Ozy investors and lenders of tens of millions of dollars through misrepresentations and omissions concerning financial results, debt, audience size, financing, acquisition prospects and contracts, including fake contracts bearing forged signatures and impersonations of media executives. The Justice Department specifically alleged that a fake cable-network contract and subsequent impersonation of a network executive were used in efforts to obtain a bank loan of several million dollars, and that Rao, with Watson’s agreement and instructions, impersonated a YouTube executive during a 2 February 2021 call with Goldman Sachs while Ozy sought an investment of up to $45 million. The DOJ stated that the scheme caused actual investor losses exceeding $60 million and was intended to deprive prospective investors of hundreds of millions of dollars more.

Following an eight-week trial, a federal jury convicted Watson on 16 July 2024 of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, and convicted Ozy on both charged conspiracy counts. The DOJ reported that Rao and Han had previously pleaded guilty to charges relating to their roles in the scheme and were awaiting sentencing at the time of the July 2024 verdict announcement. Watson and Ozy had pleaded not guilty; Watson denied the allegations, and the defence attributed the misrepresentations to other Ozy personnel.

On 16 December 2024, Judge Eric R. Komitee sentenced Watson to 116 months’ imprisonment and sentenced Ozy to one year of probation. In February 2025, Judge Komitee ordered Watson and Ozy to pay nearly $37 million in restitution, entered a forfeiture judgment exceeding $59 million against Watson, and ordered forfeiture against Ozy in the amount sought by the government. A Second Circuit criminal appeal filed for Watson was opened on 12 March 2025; the docket records that Ozy was also an appellant in linked proceedings and that an extension to file the opening brief for Watson and Ozy was granted through 20 August 2025, followed by a further extension order on 11 August 2025. The sources reviewed do not state the outcome of that appeal. Our targeted searches did not yield reliable public findings on sentencing outcomes for Rao or Han.

3. Criminal Sentences Commuted

President Donald Trump commuted the sentences of Carlos Watson and Ozy Media. The official warrants state that the sentences were commuted to time served; they do not state that the underlying convictions were set aside.

On 28 March 2025, President Donald J. Trump granted clemency to Carlos Watson in United States v. Watson et al., No. 1:23-cr-82, and separately to Ozy Media, Inc. in United States v. Ozy Media, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cr-82, according to the two Department of Justice Executive Grants of Clemency. NBC News, reporting information from CNBC and a senior White House official, stated that Watson’s commutation occurred hours before he was expected to begin serving a 116-month prison term, and that the company’s one-year probation sentence in the same criminal case was also commuted. The commutations followed the convictions addressed elsewhere in this report; NBC News reported that Watson had been convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, and that Ozy Media had been convicted in the same case.

Each DOJ warrant states that President Trump immediately commuted the recipient’s entire sentence to time served, with no further fines, restitution, probation or other conditions. The Watson warrant further directs the Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons immediately to release Watson. Although NBC News described the actions as removing the criminal penalties imposed on Watson and Ozy, the official warrants describe commutation of the entire sentences and do not state that the underlying convictions were vacated or otherwise set aside. Our investigations did not yield further findings on any subsequent court or administrative action concerning the convictions following the commutations.

4. Investor Fraud and Concealment Claims Were Voluntarily Dismissed

Investors sued Ozy and Samir Rao over stock purchases, alleging securities-law violations, fraud and concealment of the Goldman Sachs impersonation incident and related investigations. LifeLine sought rescission of $2.25 million in investments and later voluntarily dismissed its action, while another investor reportedly filed a lawsuit seeking about $2 million.

LifeLine Legacy Holdings, LLC filed a federal action in the Northern District of California on 4 October 2021; the court docket records that it initially named Ozy Media Inc. and Samir Rao, and its first amended complaint of 26 October 2021 also named Carlos Watson. According to a 2022 order of that court in related insurance litigation, LifeLine alleged violations of federal securities laws and the California Corporations Code, and fraud by concealment, in connection with its stock-purchase agreement with Ozy. The allegations were that Ozy and Rao knew, when the investment agreement was made, of an incident in which Rao allegedly impersonated a YouTube executive in a Goldman Sachs call, and that Ozy did not disclose the incident or resulting investigations to prospective investors. Reuters reported in October 2021 that LifeLine alleged Ozy executives and directors had sought to conceal the incident and minimise its seriousness, and that it would not have made its $2 million late-February investment had it known; it sought rescission of investments valued at $2.25 million.

In May 2022, Reuters reported that Judge Beth Labson Freeman would dismiss the then-operative complaint but permit LifeLine to amend, including to advance a theory that Ozy's handling of the incident breached the stock-purchase agreement. The official docket confirms that the court granted the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint partly with leave to amend and partly without leave on 13 June 2022, after which LifeLine filed a second amended complaint on 29 June 2022. Ozy and Rao moved to dismiss that pleading, hearings were held on 3 November 2022, and LifeLine filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the second amended complaint without prejudice on 7 November 2022. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the consideration, if any, for that voluntary dismissal.

A contemporaneous New York magazine article referred to an Ozy investor's $2 million suit alleging “fraudulent, deceptive and illegal conduct,” but did not identify a claimant, court or case number. The contemporaneous Reuters coverage identifies LifeLine as the investor that said it had invested $2 million, while seeking rescission of $2.25 million, and identifies its federal case number. Our targeted searches did not identify a separate investor action, claimant, forum or disposition corresponding to the purported $2 million lawsuit.

5. Alleged Deceptive Practices Exposed and Operations Suspended

Reporting accused Ozy of inflated audience and performance metrics, misleading claims to investors, advertisers and the public, and an incident in which Samir Rao impersonated a YouTube executive during a Goldman Sachs fundraising call. The scrutiny prompted internal investigations, investor and advertiser concern, senior departures and a board-announced shutdown, although Watson later said operations would resume; Ozy subsequently suspended operations again in 2023.

The New York Times reported in September 2021 that Ozy Media Inc. (“Ozy”) had arranged a 2 February 2021 videoconference between Goldman Sachs and YouTube in connection with Goldman Sachs’s consideration of a $40 million investment in Ozy, but that the call was moved to a telephone conference and a person purporting to be YouTube executive Alex Piper promoted Ozy’s YouTube performance and advertising revenue. According to the Times, Goldman Sachs personnel became suspicious of the digitally altered-sounding voice, contacted Piper through his assistant, and learned that Piper had not participated; YouTube confirmed that its security team opened an investigation, and Watson subsequently apologised to Goldman Sachs and identified Ozy co-founder and chief operating officer Samir Rao as the caller. Goldman Sachs then abandoned the prospective investment and Google alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), although the FBI’s San Francisco field office would neither confirm nor deny an investigation; Watson said Rao had been experiencing a mental-health crisis at the time. Separately, contemporaneous reporting questioned Ozy’s claimed audience scale: Watson had stated that Ozy had 25 million newsletter subscribers and more than 30 million YouTube views, whereas Comscore data cited by the Times recorded fewer than 500,000 Ozy website visitors in June and July 2021; reporting also raised the possibility that Ozy paid for much of its audience.

On 28 September 2021, Ozy’s board said it had retained Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP to investigate Ozy’s “business activities,” required Rao to take leave pending the results, and stated that it would continue reviewing the company’s leadership. The reported misconduct generated investor and advertiser concern, high-profile departures and a withdrawal of some major advertising: former BBC anchor Katty Kay resigned, board chairman Marc Lasry resigned, and Ford and Ally Financial publicly paused or put their advertising relationship on hold. On 1 October 2021, the board announced that it was closing Ozy’s doors; the board’s statement did not specify the reason for the closure, which occurred five days after the initial Times report and amid the flight of investors and advertisers. Within days, however, Watson said the shutdown had been premature, that operations had been suspended with a plan to wind down, and that Ozy was again open for business; Ozy stated that it would seek staff returns and resume newsletters and video production. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the completion, conclusions or public release of the Paul Weiss review.

On 1 March 2023, Ozy stated on Twitter that, because of its “current operational and legal challenges,” its board had determined that immediately suspending operations was in its stakeholders’ best interests; Variety reported that ozy.com was unreachable that evening.

6. Television Distribution and Partnership Claims Were Challenged

Former producers and crew members said Ozy or Carlos Watson represented that The Carlos Watson Show would air in prime time on A&E, although it ultimately appeared online and A&E had not planned to air the filmed interviews. Other allegations concerned claims about Amazon Prime and YouTube, and A&E and other television partners reportedly backed away.

According to The New York Times’ September 30, 2021 report (updated October 4, 2021), Brad Bessey began work in June 2020 as executive producer of Ozy Media Inc.’s The Carlos Watson Show after Carlos Watson and Ozy co-founder and chief operating officer Samir Rao represented that it would air in an A&E prime-time slot with an August debut. The Times reports that Rao emailed Bessey the day before he started work that the programme would be “distributed by A&E”; Bessey supplied that email to the newspaper, and guest-booker emails reviewed by the newspaper also said the show would air on A&E. Bessey told the Times that he had no contact with A&E executives during production, that Watson and Rao instructed him not to contact executives whom he knew, and that another producer identified a scheduling conflict with Hoarders in the purported slot. The BBC, reporting on the Times’ findings, stated that Bessey later learned A&E had rejected the show before taping began, resigned from Ozy, and accused Watson and Rao of playing “a dangerous game with the truth”; the programme was ultimately published on Ozy’s website and YouTube. In an October 4, 2021 Associated Press report carried by NPR, Ozy was reported to have told personnel working on the interview series that it would be shown on cable television, although episodes were uploaded to YouTube. Watson told CNBC that the programme had originally been conceived with A&E, later shifted to YouTube, and involved “lots of miscommunication.”

Variety reported on October 1, 2021 that A&E had worked with Watson on a separate project, unrelated to Bessey’s programme, but cut ties with that production after the reporting concerning the show. An NPR report published October 2, 2021 further stated that A&E dropped Ozy as a partner on a limited-run series after Ozy executives allegedly told personnel hired for another show that they were working on an ongoing A&E prime-time series, and that other television partners also backed away. Variety also reported that Watson had described The Carlos Watson Show as Amazon Prime’s first talk show although it was uploaded to Amazon’s website and was not a Prime Video original, and that Ozy made a similar claim involving YouTube. Separately, TRT World, citing agencies, reported that Amazon Prime complained about Ozy’s use of its branding on billboards promoting the show, prompting an apology from Watson. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the contractual terms of any A&E arrangement, the identities of the other television partners, or any resolution of the reported Amazon branding complaint.

7. Ozy Fest Attendance and Preparedness Claims Questioned

Reporting said Ozy Fest was substantially less successful than Ozy represented. Ozy Fest 2019 was canceled, and Ozy was described as having grossly inflated crowd projections and being ill-prepared for the event.

Ozy Media Inc.'s fourth Ozy Fest, scheduled for 20–21 July 2019 on Central Park's Great Lawn, was cancelled shortly before the event amid an extreme-heat emergency. According to amNY's contemporaneous report, New York City Parks Commissioner Mitchell J. Silver stated that the event contract allowed cancellation for rain or extreme heat where the heat index exceeded 105 degrees, and that the City determined this threshold would be met on both days; he cited public, performer and responder safety as the reason for cancellation. A contemporaneous NBC New York video report stated that tens of thousands of people were expected and described water access as limited when Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the cancellation; this report does not identify the source or basis for that expected-attendance figure.

Before the cancellation, Ozy represented through its website that Ozy Fest would provide unlimited free water, misting fans, shaded areas, heat-relief tents, sunscreen dispensers and ice stations, according to a contemporaneous report republished by KPAX. KPAX further reported that Ozy was still advertising limited Sunday tickets and weekend passes as available approximately 30 minutes before the cancellation announcement, which it characterized as appearing to surprise organizers. Ozy CEO Carlos Watson said after the City decision that the company could not put festival-goers at risk and hoped to work with New York City in the future; Ozy stated that all tickets would be refunded. amNY likewise reported Ozy's full-refund plan and that Watson and co-founder Samir Rao intended to reschedule the festival for a fall date, although the supplied sources do not state whether a rescheduled in-person 2019 event occurred.

In October 2021, Variety, an entertainment-industry publication, referred to then-recent reporting that the Ozy Festival was not nearly as successful as Ozy had claimed, without providing underlying attendance data or particulars in the supplied article. An undated Wikipedia entry states that, after the 2019 cancellation, Ozy had grossly inflated crowd projections and was ill-prepared for the event, attributing the assertion to material not included in the supplied excerpt; it also quotes an unidentified employee as saying the event was going to be a disaster. Our investigations did not yield the underlying 2021 reporting or an official or event record substantiating specific projected, actual or expected attendance; further findings on the asserted lack of preparedness, any Ozy response disputing those allegations, and financial consequences were likewise not located in the permitted targeted searches.

8. Insurance Policy Rescission Sought over Alleged Application Misrepresentations

Clear Blue alleged that Ozy misrepresented or omitted revenue, fundraising, legal proceedings, potential bankruptcy and government subpoenas in its insurance applications. Courts found the rescission claim plausibly pleaded and denied Ozy’s request for advancement of defense costs, without finally resolving the merits.

In an action filed on 11 November 2021 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company sought a declaration that its directors’ and officers’ policy issued to Ozy Media Inc. was rescinded or void from inception, or alternatively that it had no duty to reimburse defence costs or indemnify insured persons. The policy followed Ozy’s August 2021 insurance applications, including a renewal application dated 3 August and a management-liability application signed by then chief operating officer Samir Rao; the applications included financial information and required written notice of material changes before inception. According to Clear Blue’s allegations as recorded by the court, Ozy misstated reported revenue and fundraising, denied involvement in securities-related civil, criminal or administrative proceedings during the preceding three years, and represented that it did not anticipate bankruptcy proceedings. Clear Blue further alleged that Ozy did not disclose the February 2021 Goldman Sachs call in which Rao allegedly impersonated a YouTube executive and Watson and Rao allegedly represented that Ozy had succeeded on YouTube to obtain investment; the court’s account of the allegations states that Goldman Sachs discovered the impersonation during the call and declined to invest. The court also recorded that Ozy and Rao received SEC and federal-grand-jury subpoenas concerning the Goldman Sachs incident and potential investors, and that Clear Blue sent an October 2021 letter styled as a notice of cancellation while purporting to rescind the policy and return premiums.

On 7 September 2022, Judge Edward J. Davila denied Ozy’s and Watson’s motion to dismiss, holding that Clear Blue had plausibly pleaded a declaratory claim for rescission and that it was inappropriate at that stage to decide whether Clear Blue had actually rescinded, or instead elected to cancel, the policy. The court expressly stated that, on a motion to dismiss, it need not determine whether or to what extent Ozy had concealed information in its application. On 20 April 2023, the court denied Ozy’s request for a preliminary injunction requiring advancement of its defence costs, finding that Clear Blue was likely able to establish material misrepresentations or omissions by Rao, whose knowledge could be imputed to Ozy, and therefore that rescission as to Ozy could be proper. The same order granted Watson, but not Ozy, advancement of defence costs and stayed discovery pending resolution of the related SEC and criminal proceedings.

In June 2023, the court denied Clear Blue leave to add an interpleader claim concerning competing interests in insurance proceeds; the order confirms that the April 2023 stay of discovery and the direction to advance Watson’s defence costs remained in place. A proposed sealing order dated 13 May 2024 concerning intervenor Ford O’Brien Landy LLP’s billing records indicates ancillary activity in the case, but does not state any resolution of rescission or coverage. Our investigations did not yield a publicly available final judgment, merits decision, settlement, dismissal resolving Clear Blue’s rescission or declaratory claims, or other record establishing the policy’s ultimate status.

9. Default Judgment Reported for Unpaid Legal Fees

A New York law firm sued Ozy Media over nearly $1.3 million in unpaid legal fees and expenses. A Law360 search snippet reported that the firm obtained a default judgment in June 2023; the full article could not be read.

Reuters reported on 23 December 2022 that Ford O’Brien Landy LLP, a New York litigation firm, sued Ozy Media Inc. in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, on 21 December 2022, seeking nearly $1.3 million in legal fees and expenses in Ford O’Brien Landy v. Ozy Media Inc., No. 654956/2022. According to Reuters’ account of the complaint, the firm had been retained for legal work concerning U.S. federal investigations and other matters, including production of 160,000 pages of records in response to U.S. subpoenas; the complaint did not disclose the substance of the investigations but identified a New York federal prosecutor’s office and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as involved. Reuters further reported that Ford O’Brien alleged that Ozy had paid only part of the invoices, had not objected to them, and had repeatedly acknowledged the debt and promised payment; the firm said Ozy paid an initial $200,000 in 2021 and then fell behind on payment obligations. Reuters stated that Ozy had not then responded to requests for comment and that no appearance for Ozy had yet been recorded in the case.

Law360 reported on 13 June 2023 that the New York Supreme Court awarded Ford O’Brien Landy a nearly $1.26 million default judgment against Ozy in the fee-related breach-of-contract action after Ozy failed to respond to the December 2022 complaint. The reported judgment amount is lower than the nearly $1.3 million initially sought, although the available sources do not explain the difference. Law360’s full article could not be retrieved because it is subscription-gated, and the official New York court docket and judgment were sought but were not returned in the search results. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the exact judgment amount or any subsequent satisfaction, enforcement, appeal, or vacatur of the default judgment.

10. Toxic and Abusive Workplace Conditions Alleged

Former employees described Ozy as demanding very long hours and having high turnover, burnout and an abusive or cultlike environment. Carlos Watson and Samir Rao were reported to have screamed at employees, and several employees resigned because of the workload and workplace conditions.

In reporting published on 1 October 2021, CNBC stated that former Ozy Media Inc. ("Ozy") employees described chief executive officer Carlos Watson as a charismatic but temperamental leader whose demands contributed to employee burnout and departures. According to CNBC, reporters were required to write four feature-length stories each week using “flavorful” prose, and several employees resigned because of burnout; the outlet also reported similar accounts of long workdays and exhaustion. Five former employees told CNBC that both Watson and co-founder and chief operating officer Samir Rao had developed reputations for shouting at employees in the workplace. CNBC further reported that the pace of work and Watson’s temper led many employees to leave, and that Watson attempted to retain some departing employees and contacted them after they had resigned.

NBC News similarly reported on 4 October 2021 that former employees characterized Watson as charismatic and temperamental, that reporters expected to produce four feature-length stories weekly had left owing to burnout, and that one former employee compared working at Ozy to a Wall Street trading floor and attributed the purportedly toxic environment in part to Watson’s and Rao’s financial backgrounds. The Week reported on 10 October 2021, while summarising other media reporting, that numerous former staffers had described Ozy’s workplace as “abusive and cultlike.” Variety also referred on 1 October 2021 to reporting concerning Ozy’s alleged abusive work environment and described reports of a toxic internal workplace in the context of the company’s shutdown amid other contemporaneous allegations. Our investigations did not yield further findings on any internal investigation, employment claim, remedial action, or formal response by Ozy, Watson or Rao to these workplace allegations.

11. Osbourne Investment Claims and Ozy Fest Trademark Use Disputed

Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne sued Ozy over the Ozy Fest name, and the parties gave differing accounts of the resulting settlement and shares. Sharon Osbourne also denied Carlos Watson’s claim that she and Ozzy had invested in Ozy Media.

In 2017, Monowise Limited Corporation, described by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as the advertiser, producer and presenter of the OZZFEST hard-rock festival named for Ozzy Osbourne, sued Ozy Media Inc. and Carlos Watson in Case No. 17-cv-8028 (JMF). The court record states that Monowise asserted trademark and unfair-competition claims arising from Ozy and Watson’s use of “OZYFEST” for Ozy’s annual Central Park festival; contemporaneous media reporting described the action as a lawsuit filed by Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne concerning rights to the Ozzfest concert series. On 3 May 2018, Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Monowise’s preliminary-injunction application, finding that Monowise’s delay in seeking relief defeated a showing of irreparable harm; the decision did not determine the underlying trademark and unfair-competition claims. The court noted that the parties had engaged in mediation efforts, while a third-party case-index page identifies the matter as closed but provides neither a closing order nor terms of any resolution. Our investigations did not yield a publicly accessible dismissal, final judgment, stipulation or settlement documentation for Case No. 17-cv-8028, including documentation of any share issuance or other settlement terms.

In late September 2021, Sharon Osbourne publicly denied that she and Ozzy Osbourne had invested in Ozy Media and called Watson “the biggest shyster” she had ever seen, according to CNBC, BBC and Variety reporting. NBC News reported that Watson acknowledged he had never met the Osbournes and said that “investor” may have been a misnomer, while maintaining that he had agreed to give Sharon Osbourne shares in Ozy following the trademark lawsuit. Watson subsequently stated to TODAY that Ozy gave the Osbournes shares as part of an agreement settling the Ozy Fest dispute and therefore considered them investors; Sharon Osbourne disputed that account. The available sources do not establish whether shares were issued, the amount or class of any shares, or the final terms of any settlement.